Prosocial Spending and Buying Time: Money as a Tool for Increasing Subjective Well-Being

Elizabeth  Dunn; A.V.  Whillans; Michael I. Norton; Lara B. Aknin

Article | Advances in Experimental Social Psychology

Prosocial Spending and Buying Time: Money as a Tool for Increasing Subjective Well-Being

by Elizabeth Dunn, A.V. Whillans, Michael I. Norton and Lara B. Aknin

Abstract

Researchers have long been interested in the relationship between income and happiness, but a newer wave of work suggests that how people use their money also matters. We discuss the three primary areas in which psychologists have explored the relationship between spending decisions and subjective well-being, beginning with a brief review of seminal research on the benefits of buying experiences. We then offer an in-depth review of two other domains in which changes in spending decisions have been shown to increase well-being: using money to benefit others (“prosocial spending”) and giving up money to have more time (“buying time”). We discuss how, when, and why prosocial spending and buying time promote happiness. In doing so, we critically consider the evidentiary value of past findings (particularly our own) and provide links to all of our available data as well as practical recommendations about how to replicate our findings (e.g., which measures and manipulations produce the most consistent results). Taken together, our studies on prosocial spending and buying time underscore the value of conceptualizing money not only as a stable life circumstance but also as a tool that individuals can intentionally utilize to alter their own happiness levels.

Keywords: wellbeing; Money; Spending; Decision Making; Happiness;

Format: Print

Read Now

Citation:

Dunn, Elizabeth, A.V. Whillans, Michael I. Norton, and Lara B. Aknin. "Prosocial Spending and Buying Time: Money as a Tool for Increasing Subjective Well-Being." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (in press).

When it comes to our to-do lists, many of us prioritize checking off tasks that are easiest to complete or are due first, regardless of importance – a phenomenon that scholars describe as the “mere urgency” effect. This tendency becomes stronger the busier we are. But constantly prioritizing urgent tasks means that important tasks that have no urgent deadline (such as updating your resume or doing creative work) get pushed aside for later and later. Some just never get done. When we fail to do what’s important, often what matters most to us, we feel stressed, overwhelmed, and unmotivated— and firms are less productive. Research suggests managers can help employees combat the tendency to put off for tomorrow what isn’t due today: have employees set aside proactive time for work that is important but not urgent.

Firms are increasingly giving consumers the vote. Eight studies demonstrate that when firms empower consumers to vote, consumers infer a series of implicit promises—even in the absence of explicit promises. We identify three implicit promises to which consumers react negatively when violated: representation (Experiments 1A–1C); consistency (Experiment 2), and non-suppression (Experiment 3). However, when firms honor these implicit promises, voting can mitigate the disappointment that arises from receiving an undesired outcome (Experiment 4). Finally, Experiment 5 identifies one instance when suppressing the vote outcome is condoned: when voters believe that the process of voting has resulted in an unacceptable outcome. More generally, we show that procedural justice plays a key mediating role in determining the relative success or failure of various empowerment initiatives—from soliciting feedback to voting. Taken together, we offer insight into how firms can realize the benefits of empowerment strategies while mitigating their risks.

There is a growing debate about whether high-income individuals are more or less generous when income inequality is high. We advance this ongoing conversation by analysing a large and comprehensive data set with approximately one million respondents from 140 countries. In this data set, higher-income individuals who live in countries with greater income inequality are less likely to donate money to charity and are more likely to volunteer than their lower-income counterparts. Higher-income individuals who feel financially insecure or show distrust of others are especially unlikely to donate money to charity under high income inequality. These moderators do not influence rates of volunteering. Together, these results advance the debate regarding whether and when inequality shapes prosocial behaviour.

Faculty & Research

Prosocial Spending and Buying Time: Money as a Tool for Increasing Subjective Well-Being

Abstract

Citation:

About the Authors

More from these Authors